I have been unable to find any documentation to support the statement made of Any Jagdtiger Ever being destroyed by Allied units! Quite the contrary! The Jagdtigers that were destroyed seem to have all been by thier Crews. Possibly after the end of WW II there were some destroyed , but nothing I can find can substantiate the loss of Jadgtigers & crew during WW II.
Also not many know that the Jagdtiger used Infar-red night vision sighting! Long before infra-red night vision was common place! Having been an actual Tank Gunner, NOTHING Excites me more than Tanks & now World Of Tanks!
Keep Your Tracks Tight!
~The BATMOTANK~

Exactly - The Sherman was never "purely designed" as an Infantry Killer. It had a good number of machine guns, better visibility than most, and could fire a HE round better than its opponents, but its L-42 75 M3 could easily blow away a Panzer IV Ausf F.2, just as the Panzer IV could at 1,000 meters with its own L-44 75mm KwK. (Yes, the Panzer IVs gun was a bit better with AP over HE, but early models until 1942-43 only had 45mms of protection.) Also, in Italy, Shermans could go where Pz Ivs couldn't, and also 112mms of protection thanks to the 51mms of slopping armour. Panzer IVs only had 45mms by 1943. It wasn't until the Ausf H. model that they received 80mms, forcing the Sherman to close its range to 800mms for penetration.

Also, the tiger was never a problem. Very few Sherman tank crews ever encountered Tigers. Even so, the 76mm M1 (Hellcat's gun) could easily destroy a tiger at 800 to 1000 meters with standard AP. For its day, the Sherman gave excellent protection (better than the T-34, which had NO ammunition storage of any kind, could see only 500 meters ahead of itself, 45mms of slopping armour was very brittle and gave as little as 92mms of protection, and its early gun couldn't knock the paint of even 51mms of armour at 600m) a good gun, excellent visibility, and relatively safe ammunition storage.

Also, the nickname "Tommy Cooker" was given to British "Tommies" (British soldier's nickname since the first world war) due to the fact that they refused to use ammunition storage. (Same thing for Russian crews, who still preferred the Sherman because of its better optics, good armour and spacious interior.)

Exactly - The Sherman was never "purely designed" as an Infantry Killer. It had a good number of machine guns, better visibility than most, and could fire a HE round better than its opponents, but its L-42 75 M3 could easily blow away a Panzer IV Ausf F.2, just as the Panzer IV could at 1,000 meters with its own L-44 75mm KwK. (Yes, the Panzer IVs gun was a bit better with AP over HE, but early models until 1942-43 only had 45mms of protection.) Also, in Italy, Shermans could go where Pz Ivs couldn't, and also 112mms of protection thanks to the 51mms of slopping armour. Panzer IVs only had 45mms by 1943. It wasn't until the Ausf H. model that they received 80mms, forcing the Sherman to close its range to 800mms for penetration.

Also, the tiger was never a problem. Very few Sherman tank crews ever encountered Tigers. Even so, the 76mm M1 (Hellcat's gun) could easily destroy a tiger at 800 to 1000 meters with standard AP. For its day, the Sherman gave excellent protection (better than the T-34, which had NO ammunition storage of any kind, could see only 500 meters ahead of itself, 45mms of slopping armour was very brittle and gave as little as 92mms of protection, and its early gun couldn't knock the paint of even 51mms of armour at 600m) a good gun, excellent visibility, and relatively safe ammunition storage.

Also, the nickname "Tommy Cooker" was given to British "Tommies" (British soldier's nickname since the first world war) due to the fact that they refused to use ammunition storage. (Same thing for Russian crews, who still preferred the Sherman because of its better optics, good armour and spacious interior.)

but you do know that when the t-34 came out only the 88 canon could destroy them?

Interesting, although am not shure I agree with your assesment of the sturmgeshutz. Everything I have read indicates that more tanks were destroyed by them then any other model of tank. Ace Tanker Micheal Witman got most of his tank kills in one as well.

Interesting, although am not shure I agree with your assesment of the sturmgeshutz. Everything I have read indicates that more tanks were destroyed by them then any other model of tank. Ace Tanker Micheal Witman got most of his tank kills in one as well.

Yea, agree. ''impressive record of tank kills. around 9,500 Stug IIIs were produced but had in total over 20,000 confirmed armor kills.''

Interesting, although am not shure I agree with your assesment of the sturmgeshutz. Everything I have read indicates that more tanks were destroyed by them then any other model of tank. Ace Tanker Micheal Witman got most of his tank kills in one as well.

I think when he said it was mostly useless, he was talking about the StuH version.

but you do know that when the t-34 came out only the 88 canon could destroy them?

But you do know that the veracity of your statement is nonexistent, right? 45mm of sloped armor is fine protection, but 45mm of brittle, riveted armor doesn't hold up well against any German gun. The 8.8cm make short work of any T-34 but that doesn't mean that only an 8.8cm could defeat its armor.

But you do know that the veracity of your statement is nonexistent, right? 45mm of sloped armor is fine protection, but 45mm of brittle, riveted armor doesn't hold up well against any German gun. The 8.8cm make short work of any T-34 but that doesn't mean that only an 8.8cm could defeat its armor.

His statement is correct. When the T-34 came out, none of the German guns short of the 8.8cm flak guns or artilery pieces could knock it out. Of course, later in the war (after the 50mm guns and larger came out), the T-34's armour was useless, but still.

The tank was captured at the Second Battle of Villers-Bretonneux on 24 April 1918 by the 26th Battalion of the 7th Brigade 2nd Division 1st AIF, mostly from Queensland. The battle for the area saw the Australian, British and German forces in a fluid situation, moving around the tank, which had been disabled after falling into a ditch and still had dead crew inside. The Australian infantry, hatched a plan to capture it so it could not be used by the Germans. After launching an artillery barrage, the Infantry moved forward and dragged it back to their lines, the Germans still being in a position in sight of the tank and firing at them. They had to don gas masks after poison gas was deployed..

His statement is correct. When the T-34 came out, none of the German guns short of the 8.8cm flak guns or artilery pieces could knock it out. Of course, later in the war (after the 50mm guns and larger came out), the T-34's armour was useless, but still.

No tank mounted gun could knock them out. Towed 75mm PaK's could just as easily as when they were finally mounted in turrets.

Don't think I said anything StuGgy was mostly useless, but I mentioned that the Sturmtiger was a complete waste of time when talkin about StuH.

It's not my account, by the way, it's an event account.

I can see where they get confused though. You segued into the SturmTiger very quickly while talking about the StuG and less informed people wouldn't be able to instantly pick up that your no longer talking about the StuG based on what you were describing. I was hoping you would bring up the 38cm Rocket to more clearly distinguish it and add more "lol oh those crazy Germans" to the discussion.

Chieftain, you do know that both Tiger II turrets were made and designed by Krupp, right? I have no idea where they got the name Hencshel(Have no idea how to spell it) turret and Porsche Turret.
Also, when you do the French overview, You have to mention the Char 2C, it deserves it's place in history as the only operational Super heavy tank, and the heaviest operational tank.

Chieftain, you do know that both Tiger II turrets were made and designed by Krupp, right? I have no idea where they got the name Hencshel(Have no idea how to spell it) turret and Porsche Turret.
Also, when you do the French overview, You have to mention the Char 2C, it deserves it's place in history as the only operational Super heavy tank, and the heaviest operational tank.

Quote

The first 50 King Tigers (including the three prototypes) were equipped with turrets designed by Krupp for Porsche’s VK4502(P) - commonly known as Porsche Turrets. Later models were equipped with turrets designed by Krupp for Henschel - known as Henschel or Krupp Production Turrets. Both turrets were mounted in the middle of the tank. The Porsche turret was originally developed for the VK4502(P) tank, which was based on the VK4501(P) chassis. This project was rejected, but the design of the turret was accepted and adapted for Henschel’s Tiger II (because the Henschel turret wasn’t ready yet). Porsche’s turret mounted a one-piece 88mm gun, while Henschel’s turret mounted a two-piece 88mm gun (from May 1944). The Tiger II with Porsche turret carried 80 rounds of ammunition, while the production version with the Henschel turret carried 86 rounds. Seventy-five percent of the ammunition was stored along the hull sides, and the remaining 25% was stored in the rear of the turret. Also, a total of 5,850 7.92mm rounds were carried for three MG 34/MG 42 machine guns for local and air defence.

The Porsche turret had a curved mantlet and the commander’s cupola was offset to the left. The curved mantlet created a shot trap below the mantlet and, in December 1943, Henschel was ordered to design a new turret to be used as a standard for future models. Krupp designed the turret, which featured a flush cupola, instead of a bulged one, and a saukopf mantlet. The Henschel turret was also known as Krupp’s (production) turret, or Serien Turm (serial turret). King Tiger with the Porsche turret weighed 68,500 kg, while with the Henschel turret weighed 69,800 kg. Krupp produced both turrets. The turret could be traversed 360 degrees in 19 to 77 seconds, depending on engine RPM; since the engine powered the hydraulic turret drive (at 2,000rpm - 19 seconds). It could be also traversed by hand, using the hand wheel operated by the gunner